MS DUNDAS (12.46): I will also be opposing this clause. As I said in the in-principle debate, it is an extremely serious matter that the government is trying to remove the purview of the AD(JR) Act as it does have a very fundamental role in ensuring that the actions of government are fair and correct. That these decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court means that Canberrans can have confidence that these decisions are made with due reference to territory law and, if not, then they can then take them to the Supreme Court and have that examined. Taking this away, I think, does allow citizens to have less confidence in the government that what was actually going on is above board.

Question put:

That clause 15 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

Ayes 11

Noes 2

Mr Berry

Mr Hargreaves

Ms Dundas

Mrs Burke

Mr Smyth

Ms Tucker

Mr Corbell

Mr Stanhope

Mrs Cross

Mr Stefaniak

Mrs Dunne

Mr Wood

Ms Gallagher

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

An incident having occurred in the gallery-

MR SPEAKER: Order! Remove that man from the chamber, please. I have to draw your attention to the need to have order in the gallery. If you cannot remain orderly you should leave, otherwise I will order you be removed. Order! Sir, if you cannot remain silent you should leave, otherwise I will order you be removed. Thank you.

Dictionary agreed to.

Preamble.

MS TUCKER (12.50): The Greens will be opposing the preamble. It is unusual in our legislation to have a preamble. This preamble contains several quite objectionable statements. To start with, the reference to this as solely a planning decision ignores the environmental and social effects of, firstly, continuing with a commitment to a car-based transport system when the choice could be made to shift; and, secondly, of putting a road through a nature reserve.